Last visit was: 05 Jun 2024, 03:03 It is currently 05 Jun 2024, 03:03
Close
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
SORT BY:
Date
Tags:
Show Tags
Hide Tags
GRE Forum Moderator
Joined: 02 Nov 2016
Posts: 14031
Own Kudos [?]: 34695 [4]
Given Kudos: 5812
GPA: 3.62
Send PM
Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 22 Sep 2021
Posts: 55
Own Kudos [?]: 108 [3]
Given Kudos: 9
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V49
GMAT 2: 790 Q51 V50 (Online)
Send PM
Manager
Manager
Joined: 24 Apr 2022
Posts: 172
Own Kudos [?]: 84 [0]
Given Kudos: 90
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Nonprofit
GMAT Focus 1:
585 Q81 V80 DI76
Send PM
Intern
Intern
Joined: 02 Aug 2022
Posts: 40
Own Kudos [?]: 3 [0]
Given Kudos: 277
Location: India
Send PM
Re: The War of the Spanish Succession, 1701-14, began as a quarrel over wh [#permalink]
Hi Sajjad1994,

In Q1, Is E wrong because it is an effect of what treaty led to? It is not direct effect of the treaty or there is some other reason?

Treaty ----> elevated Prussia to a kingdom ----> unified Germany ---> bloodshed that consumed the 20th century

Passage states:
Conversely, the same treaty elevated Prussia to a kingdom, thus setting in motion a chain of events that led to a unified Germany under a Prussian Kaiser instead of one governed by the Austrians, arguably making the bloodshed that consumed the 20th century more likely.

Thanks
Alka
GRE Forum Moderator
Joined: 02 Nov 2016
Posts: 14031
Own Kudos [?]: 34695 [0]
Given Kudos: 5812
GPA: 3.62
Send PM
Re: The War of the Spanish Succession, 1701-14, began as a quarrel over wh [#permalink]
Expert Reply
Alka10 wrote:
Hi Sajjad1994,

In Q1, Is E wrong because it is an effect of what treaty led to? It is not direct effect of the treaty or there is some other reason?

Treaty ----> elevated Prussia to a kingdom ----> unified Germany ---> bloodshed that consumed the 20th century

Passage states:
Conversely, the same treaty elevated Prussia to a kingdom, thus setting in motion a chain of events that led to a unified Germany under a Prussian Kaiser instead of one governed by the Austrians, arguably making the bloodshed that consumed the 20th century more likely.

Thanks
Alka


The author states that unifying Germany under Prussian rather than Austrian rule made war more likely. (E) is wrong because it is a distortion to state that the author thought unifying Germany itself was the problem.
Intern
Intern
Joined: 28 Feb 2024
Posts: 1
Own Kudos [?]: 0 [0]
Given Kudos: 15
Send PM
Re: The War of the Spanish Succession, 1701-14, began as a quarrel over wh [#permalink]
ryanstarr wrote:
The War of the Spanish Succession, 1701–14, began as a quarrel over whether an Austrian Habsburg or French Bourbon would succeed the childless Charles II of Spain. The conflict eventually embroiled most of Europe, with Austria, England, Holland, and Prussia the major powers opposing France, Spain, and Bavaria. For centuries afterward, school children learned of the Duke of Marlborough’s victory at Blenheim, the military brilliance of Prinz Eugen of Savoy, an independent territory east of France, as well as the opposing brightness of Louis XIV of France, known as the Sun King, who also built the famous palace at Versailles. Today, however, virtually all those names would elicit only blank stares.

Although this war and its personages have now vanished into obscurity, its effects greatly affected the course of European and world history. The Treaty of Utrecht, which ended the war in 1714, ceded the Spanish island of Gibraltar to England. The “Rock of Gibraltar” became an invincible British fortress that controlled the Mediterranean and thus was of paramount importance in both world wars. Conversely, the same treaty elevated Prussia to a kingdom, thus setting in motion a chain of events that led to a unified Germany under a Prussian Kaiser instead of one governed by the Austrians, arguably making the bloodshed that consumed the 20th century more likely.

1. The author implies that a possibly negative aspect of the Treaty of Utrecht was
To answer this, it'll be best to go to the part of the passage and re-read the part about the consequences of the Treaty of Utrecht (skim for mention of the treaty--it's in para. 2). Note what's said about the treaty:
    - it ended the War of Spanish Succession in 1714
    - it ceded Gibraltar to England
    - it elevated Prussia to a kingdom

Then, decide which of these things is most negative. Ending a war is (presumably) a good thing, so that one's out like a trout. Ceding Gibraltar to England? That's a bit controversial in modern times, but the passage doesn't comment on it except to say that it proved "invincible" later on, so if anything, this is a positive aspect of the Treaty of Utrecht (maybe not to enemies of the Crown...). The passage does say that elevating Prussia to a kingdom set in motion a chain of events that arguably made the bloodshed that consumed the 20th century more likely, and bloodshed does sound a bit negative (maybe not to vampires?), so this is likely what the question is after. Find an answer that matches.


(A) awarding Gibraltar to the British
(B) reducing the Duke of Marlborough to obscurity
(C) elevating Prussia to a kingdom
(D) failing to resolve the Spanish succession
(E) unifying Germany

(C) clearly matches the prediction. You might wonder what makes this an inference question rather than an "according to the passage" question. Essentially, it's just that you have to connect some structural dots to choose (C)--the passage doesn't outright say that this was a bad thing, and it doesn't immediately say that elevating Prussia led to bloodshed. It's up to you (yes: you) to make the connection.


2. Which of the following must be true, according to the passage?
Unlike the last question, this one doesn't give us any specific details to latch onto. In these cases, it's usually a good idea to start by scanning the answers and seeing if there are any that are obviously wrong (or obviously right--fingers crossed).

(A) Not all of the important military personages were from major powers.
This is plausible. There were military personages mentioned in the first paragraph, and it's hard to say what kind of powers they were from. Keep this for a minute.

(B) The battle of Blenheim was the most important engagement of the war.
This one's pretty suspicious: was it the most important engagement of the war? Hyperbolic answers such as this one often go by the wayside, especially when the question stem is open-ended. You're on the bubble, (B).

(C) England was the victorious power.
This seems more plausible than the previous answer (watching you, (B)), but you might remember from the research done on the previous question that Prussia also won some sort of victory, inasmuch as it was elevated to a kingdom as a result of the war. That makes an answer calling England the victorious power a bit hard to choose.

(D) France was defeated in the war.
This, again, might be right, and unlike (C), it doesn't single France out as the defeated power, so keep it around for later analysis.

(E) The transfer of Gibraltar was the most important result of the war.
Again, this one's a bit hyperbolic, so it's significantly less likely to be right. Also again, you know from the previous question that the elevation of Prussia to *kingdom status* led to big dramatic vampire-pleasing things in the 20th century, so that might have been the most important result of the war. This one's definitely not looking good.

Coming away from this first run through the answers, (A) and (C) emerge as the most promising among them. At this point, it's a good idea to go back to the passage and research the details mentioned in (A) and (C) more carefully:
[list]Where did the military personages come from? At least one was from Savoy, a place described as an independent territory east of France and not listed among the major powers in the previous sentence. This answer looks promising.

Did France lose the war? You know by that Spain lost something (Gibraltar, once fondly known as the Pillars of Heracles) to England, and you know that Prussia (a power listed on the same side as England) also won something big in the Treaty of Utrecht, which is almost definitely a real place. Therefore, it's pretty fair to assume that Spain lost a bit and that England and Prussia were on the winning side of things. However, nothing is specifically mentioned about France besides a low-key panegyric on Louis XIV. It's possible that France fought this one to a draw. And given that it's undeniable that answer (A) has some affirmative backing in the passage, you shouldn't choose this unsubstantiated (in either direction) answer over it.

The correct answer is (A).
Hi! pretty much convinced with your answer for Question 2, But got stuck at this point that-
How did we differentiate between major powers and those who were less strong ?
­
Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 22 Sep 2021
Posts: 55
Own Kudos [?]: 108 [0]
Given Kudos: 9
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V49
GMAT 2: 790 Q51 V50 (Online)
Send PM
Re: The War of the Spanish Succession, 1701-14, began as a quarrel over wh [#permalink]
Expert Reply
Quote:
Hi! pretty much convinced with your answer for Question 2, But got stuck at this point that-
How did we differentiate between major powers and those who were less strong ?
­

­The passage lists major powers in the second sentence: Austria, England, Holland, Prussia, France, Spain, and Bavaria. It can be inferred that any other power referred to in describing the War of Spanish Succession is not a major power. So when in the following sentence the passage talks about great figures from the war and mentions that one was a prince of Savoy, described as an independent territory, it can be inferred that Savoy, while independent (and so a power), is not a major power--otherwise it would've been listed among the major powers in the previous sentence.
Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 22 Sep 2021
Posts: 55
Own Kudos [?]: 108 [0]
Given Kudos: 9
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V49
GMAT 2: 790 Q51 V50 (Online)
Send PM
Re: The War of the Spanish Succession, 1701-14, began as a quarrel over wh [#permalink]
Expert Reply
Quote:
Thanks ryanstarr ! Any recommendations on RC Prep?

Spend time after each question putting into your own words exactly why the wrong answers are wrong and why the right answer is right (using support from the passage). If you check your answer and see that you've gotten a problem wrong, take one more crack at it, trying in your own (and the passage's) words to justify the credited answer and eliminate the wrong answer that you erroneously picked. Only go to the explanations after that. Get to know what kinds of traps you're vulnerable on RC, and get good at talking yourself into correct answers and out of wrong answers (using the process described above), and you'll win all the RC awards out there.
­
GMAT Club Bot
Re: The War of the Spanish Succession, 1701-14, began as a quarrel over wh [#permalink]
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6954 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
238 posts
GRE Forum Moderator
14031 posts